Wednesday, December 31, 2014

For Victoria, who passed away on Dec 30 at 1:05 pm. Her life may have been short, but it was full and she lived it joyfully. In her last few months which were painful and marked by suffering, she never once complained.

At the age of nine, she left this world for a better one. Little Victoria, please pray for us here on earth.

He continued, “When I hear these things that Black lives matter, the only people who really believe that statement are American police officers who go into American ghettos every day to keep people from killing each other. Alright, so, yes I did say that and I meant it. Look, the abortions? If Black lives – if they really mattered, that’s where the outrage would be that’s where we’d see protests…”

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke has been on Fox News several times, a voice of reason in the midst of the chaos. And from the quote above, a man who is looking at a much bigger picture than is being shown by the media.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

One of my daily prayer intentions is that a doctor somewhere in Canada will have a change of heart on abortion and come out on the pro-life side. Surely there is someone somewhere who has realised that he/she can no longer perform abortions and has realised that this discarded "clump of cells" is a fellow human being.

Bruchalski is the founder of the Tepeyac Family Center in Fairfax, Virginia which is one of the only all pro-life OB/GYN health care practices in the nation. Now that he is pro-life, he is a dynamic and engaging speaker whose story and style reaches people on all sides of the culture battle and shows them the value of an evidence-based approach to medicine and the value of treating the whole person.

Bruchalski first began to question his abortion practice during a trip to Mexico City where he visited the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadelupe whose feast was yesterday. This was the very place where Mary appeared to Juan Diego and asked him to build a church. The story continues that Mary gave Juan a proof of her appearance by putting her image on the cape that he had used to wrap up roses to take to the Bishop as a sign from Mary. When he undid the cape to let the roses fall, there was the image on the cloth.

Bruchalski heard a voice asking him "Why are you hurting me?" His response was to turn from the experience and ignore it. He returned to the US and continued his OB/GYN practice which included abortions.

However another trip to Yugoslavia brought him face to face with the contradiction of his life. In Medjugorje, a woman came up to him with some prophetic words which she told him to write down.

“In health care, practice excellent medicine, see the poor daily and follow the teachings of my Son’s church,” the woman said. “If you can do those three things, you will help my Son renew the face of the earth.”

He began to weep and he said it was as if scales fell from his eyes. He returned to the US, set up his pro-life clinic and has been speaking against abortion since that time.

My question is why have I not heard of a single doctor in Canada who has had a similar experience? Surely there is one, at least one. And if there is, why are they so timid to speak up?

In Canada, because of our national health care system, anyone who does not follow the prescribed course of practise, is ostracized and probably finds themselves out of a job. I have heard of nurses who can no longer work in certain hospitals because they will not assist in abortions. Because of the nature of government health care, the freedom of conscience of doctors and nurses is automatically curtailed. Although we are told they are allowed to follow their conscience, I very much doubt that they can in reality. Standing up for one's beliefs will mean loss of work.

If this is not true, tell me. and if it is not true, then there should be a doctor or a nurse who is willing to speak out against the 100,000 abortions that are performed annually in this country. Where are they?

Monday, December 8, 2014

From www.cultureoflifeafrica.com comes more disturbing news. A Family Planning Conference is to be held in the capital of Nigeria. Not just one or two rich sponsors, but 11 western organizations are holding this conference, organizations that include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID, along with the support of International Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes.

Hardly a family planning conference, but rather a conference to prod Nigeria towards the direction that has been taken in the west. Advice from western ideologues to the Third World on how to deal with sexuality. Advice from the people who promote gender confusion, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, in fact any kind of sex except the one that is safest: sex within a committed faithful marriage.

The truth is that the listed organizers, sponsors and planners of this conference are very much in tune with the FP2020 target and in step with the highly radicalized agenda of sexual and reproductive rights which is right now sweep through the western world like a hurricane, destroying countless lives, homes, marriages and families.

What is it about these organizatons and individuals that make them feel compelled to share their world view with Nigeria for one example? Their own failed track record is one that has brought much grief to the west; now they want to spread that thinking to the Third World.

I recall years ago, a talk by a priest who had been a missionary in Africa for many years. He held up a picture of an African family with their many children standing in front of their small African house, chickens running around, the children barefoot, and showed it to a western audience. The African faces were all smiles. But the audience didn't get it. They did not see the happiness that these Africans found in their family life. Then he held up a picture of a typical western family with a mom and dad and just two children, posed in front of a large house. The western faces did not show the same happiness that was evident in the faces of the Africans. Then the audience got it.

It would seem that materialism upends true thinking. When one has too much of material wealth, the real value of family, children, simple tasks and experiences are not seen to have great value. Instead the possession of a pampered lifestyle replaces the values that are inherent to relationships. Stuff replaces people. And this is what the Third World peoples can show us: that stuff does not bring happiness, but the bonds of a loving family life do.

As one of my children said, after spending a year on the National Evangelization Team: "the families we stayed with, the ones that were the happiest, were always the ones with lots of kids."

I appeal passionately to my people, do not fall for the lies of misguided western ideologues. Instead, let us together as a people reconsider carefully and reflect deeply on the true meaning, purpose and implications of " Family Planning". For this, we do not need wealthy sponsors, donors, partners and planners who have emerged from a broken world where the sanctity of human life is denied, where the law allows for the killing of the unborn, where sex outside of marriage has been normalized, where the divorce rates are staggering and the suicide rates are incredibly high.

Yet, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a philanthropic foundation that counts as one of its key priorities the spreading of cheap contraception in the Third World. Their most recent endeavour is the sale of a very inexpensive self-injectable contraceptive called "Sayana Press".

This easy-to-administer form of an old drug by Pfizer Incorporated is being hailed by many as the magic wand to reduce poverty and emancipate poor women in over 69 countries around the world especially in Sub Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America.

This is not the first time the Gates have been involved with pushing contraception in Africa. Previously Melinda Gates collaborated with David Cameron, Britain's prime minister, to advance contraceptive use in Africa. In 2013, she was a key player in the Women Deliver Conference in Malaysia:

This year , they have moved many steps further as was evident at the Women Deliver Conference that was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in June, where they featured the biggest and the brightest stars of the pro-contraception and pro-abortion movement .

In response to Melinda Gates' misdirected charity, Obianuju Ekeocha wrote an open letter to Ms Gates. Ekeocha is not to be dismissed. She is a Catholic Nigerian woman with a BSc in microbiology from the University of Nigeria and an MSc in Biomedical Science from the University of East London. Here is a link to her letter to Melinda Gates:

In this letter, Ekeocha outlines the African attitude to babies which is one of joy; in fact her village in Nigeria, has a special song that is sung on the day a new baby is born. Where Melinda Gates wishes to bring "safe sex" and child-proof sexuality to African women, Ekeocha lists where those 4.6 billion dollars could be better spent: in good healthcare, in food programs for young children, better educational opportunities, chastity programs, micro-business opportunities for women, increased aid to existing NGOs that work to protect women from sex-trafficking, prostitution, child labour and other ills that befall the poor of the world.

My question is, if the Gates are indeed practising Catholics, why doesn't their priest or bishop speak to them about their involvement in activities that are clearly banned by the Catholic Church? Why are they given the respect they are, when they are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church? Why are they not told clearly that they should obey the teachings of the Church or leave? You can't have it both ways.

This couple seems driven to give back from their great wealth to the world. And it is entirely possible that they are completely altruistic in their endeavours. But they have the basic principles all wrong. I think the confusion they suffer from is expressed by Bill Gates himself in this line from an interview in the Christian Post, linked above.

When asked if he believed in God, he responded, "I think it makes sense to believe in God, but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don't know."

Lest you feel these claims are an exaggeration, consider the numbers. According to 2010 census data, African Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population2 but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that black women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions in 2009.3 The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total.4 Their most recent numbers are from 2008. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women5 accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions in 2008,6 though Hispanics make up just 16.3% of the U.S. population.7 The CDC lists the percentage of Hispanic abortions at 20.6%.8 Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic whites, who make up 63.7% of America's population,9 but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions10 (37.7% according to the CDC11).

In 2009, a total of 286,623 blacks died in the U.S.14 That same year, an estimated 1.21 million abortions took place in the United States.15 If 35.4% were performed on black women, that means almost twice as many blacks were killed by abortion as by all other causes. In 2010, the black population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million.16 The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were perfumed on black women.17 That percentage rose to 30% in the 1980's, 34% in the 1990's and 36% in the 2000's.18 That means that about 31% of all U.S. abortions since 1973 have been performed on African American women. Based on the January 2013 estimate that there have been 55.7 million abortions in the United States since 1973,19 we can deduce that approximately 17 million of the aborted babies were black. Despite an overall black population growth of 12% between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black population "grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country."20CBS News reported in 2009 that "Hispanics have surpassed blacks as the nation's largest minority group."21 Can there be any question about the role abortion has played in this demographic shift? Despite similar population numbers, Hispanic women currently account for about 20% of all U.S. abortions,22 whereas African-American women account for 35%. From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of.

Do black people even know that their numbers are being decimated by abortion? There is a reason why Planned Parenthood locates their abortion clinics in poor neighbourhoods where the majority of people are people of colour. They know who to target for their clients.

Do black lives really matter? Mayor de Blasio may think so, yet he is a strong proponent of abortion and supporter of Planned Parenthood. Why is this discrepancy not being pointed out? If the statistics are there for someone like me to find and read, surely those who have the voice to speak out can find them too.

The truth is that black (and Hispanic) lives do not really matter, not when it comes to the unfettered right to abortion.

The question is, however: Can Muslim leaders (whoever might qualify as a Muslim “leader” in a religion with no central authority) really make this condemnation without endangering both their own lives and the integrity of the Qur’an itself? Many writers have pointed out that the relative silence of Muslim leaders before such scenes of persecution and terror is not primarily because they too are not sometimes horrified. The reason is theological. They know that the Qur’an does not condemn violence in the pursuit of its religion. It sometimes approves it; it sometimes disapproves it.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Muslim leaders did “condemn” such violence. On what grounds would they do so? This question involves the integrity of the Qur’an, the bedrock of the religion. A Pakistani Christian couple was recently murdered for supposedly burning two of its pages. If the leaders condemned religiously motivated violence on the grounds of reason, however, that itself would imply the existence of some authority higher than the Qur’an. That would undermine all those many passages in the Qur’an that contradict each other and make the book seem incoherent. That concern is why Muslim philosophers devised a system that could maintain that both sides of a contradictory can be true. Generally, when one passage in the Qur’an is contradicted by another, the one later in time takes precedence. But both passages are retained.

It is only when Muslims examine the Koran with reason that they will discover it doesn`t stand up to the test of truth. Unfortunately the majority of Muslims don`t read the Koran in such a way and they continue to uphold these contradictions.

Monday, December 1, 2014

Last night, Sun News aired a documentary by Ann McElhinney and Phalim McAleer called Not Evil, Just Wrong - The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria.

Well worth watching. It shows how the film by Al Gore has been used to form the minds of young children, something that will be difficult to undo. My husband, a geologist, does not deny the possibility of global warming, but what he does see as dangerous is the politicization of science. Never before have the findings of science been used to activate a whole group of people in a political way. As the film shows, this began with the Rachel Carson book "The Silent Spring" and has been fanned into a religion with the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth.

What I found particularly disturbing is the segment on malaria in Africa and how the banning of DDT use (which was a direct consequence of Carson's book) has led to the death of 30 million African children.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Northern Europe is clearly one of the world’s most Godless regions. Yet, at the same time, the Catholic Church, while a minority denomination, is experiencing a revival that only Counterreformation popes could have dreamed of.

While vocations have dwindled in the west, the increase in Scandinavia is striking. 680 nuns in Scandinavia, making the proportion one nun for 880 Catholics in the region. In the US, the proportion is one in 1400 and many of those nuns are uber-liberals who have been severely criticized by recent popes.

In Sweden, there are 103,000 Catholics and 17 seminarians; by contrast, Vienna has 13 times as many Catholics, but fewer than 35 seminarians. So what is going on?

Apparently, lots of immigration from countries like Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, and Lithuania. But this doesn't explain what is happening in Britain where the number of seminarians has increased four-fold and practising Catholics now outnumber Anglicans.

It seems that the strong moral stand of the Catholic Church is one of the factors explaining these numbers. Mainline Protestant churches have caved on issues of sexual morality, now accepting same-sex unions and avoiding the issue of abortion.

There is something to be said for orthodoxy. Let us hope and pray that this spirit will flourish in North America as well, bringing new and fervent converts back to faith.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

From 1983, an interview between Bernard Nathanson and Henry Morgentaler. Both men were abortion doctors; both men aborted their own children; both men regretted those abortions. Nathanson changed from pro-abortion to pro-life and later converted to the Catholic faith. He said he carried the weight of all those deaths on his conscience. Morgentaler did not express remorse for his life, but died while a lawsuit was still pending in New Brunswick to allow federal funding for his abortion clinic in Fredericton.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Last Thursday night, President Obama issued his executive order that would grant amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. Not calling it an "executive order", but a presidential memo, it is the same thing.

Obama stated that he had waited for Congress to present him with an immigration bill, and that they had simply not done this. No mention of the fact that the Democrats held both the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first two years of his presidency and that they had done nothing on the immigration issue during that time, when they had the ability to do so easily. Some Democrats offer the reason that Obama was intent on getting his health care bill through and that it was the pressing issue of those first years. This implies that he can't do two things at the same time, which was disproved recently in China when he was caught on camera, walking and chewing gum simultaneously.

Over the weekend, a headline caught my eye - that the Congress of American Bishops had approved of Obama's move on immigration.

It has long been known that the Catholic Congregation of Bishops wants an overhaul of the immigration law, and there is no doubt that such an overhaul is necessary. However, to approve of what Obama did on Thursday is to approve the ends, regardless of the means.

President Obama does not have the patience to wait for the newly elected members of the Senate and House of Representatives (both of which are now Republican majorities) and so he rammed through his executive order without even trying to work with them. Obama, more than any other president, has no will to work with the other side. As has been stated time and again, he is an ideologue who does not stoop to deal with the reality of issues. He prefers to rule by fiat.

Is this fair? Scott Johnson points out something that should be obvious:

The proposed executive action on immigration (or whatever name you want to give it) will allow [illegal aliens] who have US citizen or green-card children and who have been here for five years to apply for some kind of quasi-status and open market work authorization. That would allow them to work for a period of time at any employer, the authorization presumably renewable until they decide to leave or have an option for US permanent resident status (green card status). This, the administration tells us, is fair and just and Biblical – yada/yada.

But this option is explicitly NOT available to those in the US in a valid legal status. There are millions of people in the US who have temporary status – as students or temporary workers or researchers or as investors (lots of Koreans own businesses with E-2 investor visas, for example). These people – many of them have US citizen children and have been here five years. These people who have been here legally and not violated their immigration status – these people are explicitly NOT eligible for open market work authorization, renewable indefinitely.

Meanwhile, the newly elected Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, aims to launch a lawsuit against the federal government for acting in an unconstitutional manner. And there is plenty of evidence that he is correct. Obama himself has been recorded over twenty times, stating that he cannot change the law on immigration by himself and that it has to be changed by the legislature. Suddenly ten lawyers were found who told him that he could change the law by himself and so he went ahead.

But the consequences of his actions will be dire. Over the summer, 70 thousand children came across the border into Mexico. Most of them had been brought over by crooks who take large sums of money from their parents to bring them into the US, where they will be united with relatives who are already here. Each month, one thousand illegal immigrants come across the Texas border and the state of Texas is left to deal with the health issues of these people, and the task of relocating them somewhere. They have been told not to send them back. And who could do such a thing, knowing that they would face great danger to their lives if they were to be returned to Mexico?

The immigrants are coming from Mexico, Central and South America. And now a large group of Cubans are awaiting their flight to the US, since they feel reassured by Obama that they will be welcomed and cared for upon their entry into the US.

Yes, the immigration law is broken but executive order is not the way to fix it.

People coming to the US from countries, where their lives are in danger from drug cartel overlords, are seeking a country where the rule of law works. It is ironic that they come to the US, where the rule of law has just been overturned by the President himself. How long will the US remain the country they believe it to be, if the power of the president is allowed to run unchecked? What is to stop the next president, who may be Republican, from doing a similar thing on another issue?

As Ronald Reagan once said:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

The issue of immigration in the US is not just an issue about the 11 million illegal immigrants who have sought a new home in a new country. It is an issue about the overreach of the executive branch of government, something that the founders of the Constitution fought hard to prevent. The three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial are held in a fine balance in order to preserve individual freedoms. The USA is the only country in the entire world that is founded on such a principle of individual freedom.

What is at stake here is the very loss of that precious freedom by a President who thinks that he knows better than the elected officials of the government. The image of him chewing gum shows him as he really is, a man who is insolent toward those for whom he has no respect. His latest actions show that it is not just nations abroad that he does not respect; he does not respect his own country and its citizens.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Essure birth control, manufactured by Bayer, is a permanent non-surgical method of birth control. Metal coils are inserted into a woman's fallopian tubes, with the result that the woman's body produces tissue that grows through the coils, thus blocking the tubes. Eggs cannot travel down the tubes and no fertilization can occur.

Apparently, there are over 12,000 followers in a support group on a private Facebook page. The problem is that these women who have had problems with the method (from pain to migraine headaches to early menopause, cysts, and even organ puncture) cannot sure because Essure was given an FDA pre-emption.

Robert Jenner, an attorney with Janet, Jenner and Suggs in Pikesville said that “the idea behind preemption is that the companies that make approved devices get protection from the FDA and can’t be sued because the agency so heavily scrutinizes their devices.”

Why would a woman resort to this method of birth control? Since the method is permanent, why wouldn't she opt instead for a tubal ligation? (not that I am advocating that method either, just asking the obvious question). The very idea of metal coils inserted into a body is a horrific idea. I don't see why anyone would consent to this.

We deserve healthcare that won’t hurt us. Families deserve better than having unexpected medical problems they could have avoided. And ultimately, women deserve better than tiny metal coils that ruin their lives.

So if we are dredging up rape accusations against formerly famous old man, why not talk about the ones surrounding a former president who still wields considerable influence and who might, God help us, end up in the White House again in two years?

Matt Walsh on the allegations against Bill Cosby, while Bill Clinton gets a pass.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

When the city council of Nanaimo banned a Christian group from holding a conference, Ezra Levant made the issue known. He called for a petition to let the city know that they did not have the right to ban groups on the basis of religious identity.

When that didn't work, Ezra headed up a move to hire a lawyer who would sue the city for its actions. Well, that got results and the city caved. And the recent election brought in the only councillor who opposed this anti-Christian action and made him the mayor.

Kudos to Ezra Levant who fights for freedom of religion. Who would do this if Ezra didn't?

Saturday, November 15, 2014

This afternoon a young man came to the door, canvassing for Megan Leslie, the NDP member of Parliament here in Halifax.

I told him immediately that I could not support the New Democratic Party because they are pro-abortion and pro-same-sex marriage, neither position I support. He asked if I would reveal which party I did support. And I told him that my husband and I often have to destroy our ballot because there is no one for whom we can vote.

He then said "well, I guess you don't want one of these cards?" and I said no. As he turned to leave, his last words were "well, the Supreme Court has decided that these are so." I didn't have a chance to reply as he left quickly. I wished he had stayed for a moment longer, or perhaps more, because what I wanted to say was that the law is no defense of a moral position.

There have been many cases of bad laws throughout history. One has only to recall the life of William Wilberforce who spent his entire adult life, from his early twenties until the day he died, working to overturn the slave trade in England. And he finally succeeded, a lifetime battle of some 40-50 years.

So many people have no idea of history. They do not know that the slave trade was legal, that slaves were not considered "persons" under the law, that women were not considered "persons" either. And now the unborn are not considered "persons". Is it not possible that there will come a day when we also look at that law and say that it is a bad law?

I have heard this defense of abortion many times. While on the vigil of 40 Days for Life, many people who passed by would say that abortion was legal and that we should just get over it. But there is no evidence that what man passes as law is also moral. In fact, the evidence shows that the opposite has been the case in a number of important issues.

Saying that the decision of nine judges in one country is the reason why something is therefore right is ridiculous. Why do those nine people have the right to determine what is moral for the rest of the population? And in the case of abortion in Canada, those nine judges did not say that abortion was the legal right of women, but they removed the barriers to abortion granting women access to abortion throughout their entire pregnancy. Those judges also turned the issue back to Parliament and said that the House of Commons had the duty to impose some restrictions on abortion, something that they never did.

So much ignorance surrounds this subject. And so many people simply don't want to hear anything that isn't the mainstream opinion. I hope this young man thinks more seriously about this issue and does some searching on his own. It is truly frightening that our future is in the hands of people like him, who have swallowed the party line on this issue and many others.

A woman whose baby died in utero was advised by her doctor to go to the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin Texas to have the fetal remains removed. (something I would question, having had a miscarriage at 12 weeks, that resulted in profuse bleeding and shock).

She had been sitting in the clinic waiting room with others who were awaiting their abortion appointments when a woman nearby began sobbing. Mel comforted her, reassuring her that she didn’t have to go through with the abortion. Another woman in the waiting room overheard her words of hope and approached her, also crying.

Moved by these women’s pain, Mel opened up to them: she told them she would give anything to be in their places, because the much-wanted baby she carried inside her was already dead. Hearing this, one of the women stood up and announced that there was no way she was going to go through with her abortion.

At this point, a worker at the clinic burst into the waiting room. But rather than inquire about the expressions of grief and dread on the faces of the women she encountered there, she simply turned to Mel and commanded her: “Don’t talk to anyone!”

I emailed Tremonti asking that equal time be given to two women who would speak on the other side of this issue. After all, the CBC is the state broadcaster, completely paid for by our tax dollars. Why does Ms Tremonti get to present a show that gives one side only of this issue, when the country is split almost equally between those who are pro-choice and those who are not?

I suggested that Tremonti do a follow-up segment, and that she feature Andrea Mrozek and Stephanie Gray, both women who can present the pro-life viewpoint coherently and without bile.

One comment made by Erdman was particularly irksome; that the procedure of abortion should not be cloaked in moral terms, as it was a legal procedure. Do we really believe that the law determines what is moral or not? There have been many instances in history when laws have been repealed, precisely because they were proven to be bad laws, in fact laws that protected immoral actions.
One has only to recall that it was law in Nazi Germany to place Jews in concentration camps and to kill them, as they were not considered beings with the same rights as German citizens. Also, it is not so long ago that women did not have rights, but were considered the property of their husbands. And it should be commonly known that blacks were not considered human beings, but were considered chattel to be bought and sold as slaves.

So now the developing human being in the womb is given no rights. Its only protection is if it is wanted by its mother. How advanced a society are we that we now terminate those who are smaller and considered less deserving of life? One person has to die in order to provide another with her freedom.

As both women claimed that abortion should be legal, safe and available to all women who require it, there is still no discussion of what happens in an abortion. The termination of another life is never discussed; the woman is front and centre.

Yes, there are some abortions by women for reasons of health and because they really do not think they can manage another child. But the vast majority of abortions are done because women do not want to take the consequences of their sexual activity. We won't even bring in the men here, that is a whole other issue of irresponsibility.

Abortion, for the most part, is our society's way of dealing with unfettered sexual activity. Everyone thinks it is their right to be sexually active and they do not think it fair that they should be burdened with the consequences of those actions. Therefore, the baby has to go. It is only right and fair; why should anyone be burdened with the new life created by their behaviour?

As for the CBC, they need to be held accountable by the taxpayers for their activity. I agree with Brian Lilley that the CBC should be de-funded and made to stand on its own merit. Let's see if it could last for any time at all without our tax dollars.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

From an email this morning from http://www.matercare.org/
(an organization of Catholic health professionals dedicated to the care of mothers and babies, both born and unborn, in the third world.)

Tetanus is an incurable disease that infects the body through broken skin or wounds. The umbilical cord stamp of newborn babies is a possible entry point and makes them especially susceptible. It is best prevented through immunization with the tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccine........

Our concern and the subject of this discussion is the WHO/UNICEF sponsored tetanus immunization campaign launched last year in October ostensibly to eradicate neonatal tetanus. It is targeted at girls and women between the ages of 14 – 49 (child bearing age) and in 60 specific districts spread all around the country. The tetanus vaccine being used in this campaign has been imported into the country specifically for this purpose and bears a different batch number from the regular TT. So far, 3 doses have been given – the first in October 2013, the second in March 2014 and the third in October 2014. It is highly possible that there are two more doses to go.

Giving five doses of tetanus vaccination every 6 months is not usual or the recommended regime for tetanus vaccination. The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone - Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.

When tetanus is laced with HCG and administered in five doses every 6 months, the woman develops antibodies against both the tetanus and the HCG in 2 – 3 years after the last injection. Once a mother develops antibodies against HCG, she rejects any pregnancy as soon as it starts growing in her womb thus causing repeated abortions and subsequent sterility.

WHO conducted massive vaccinations campaigns using the tetanus vaccine laced with HCG in Mexico in 1993 and Nicaragua and Philippines in 1994 ostensibly to eradicate neonatal tetanus. The campaign targeted women aged 14 – 49 years and each received a total of 5 injections.

What is downright immoral and evil is that the tetanus laced with HCG was given as a fertility regulating vaccine without disclosing its ‘contraceptive effect’ to the girls and the mothers. As far as they were concerned, they had gone for an innocent injection to prevent neonatal tetanus!

Considering the similarity of the WHO tetanus vaccination exercise in South American with the Kenyan camping and with the background knowledge of WHO’s underhand population control initiatives, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association brought the matter to the attention of the Bishops and together sort audience with the Ministry of Health with only one request; that the tetanus vaccine being used in this campaign be tested to ensure it was not laced with HCG before the 2nd round of immunizations in March. The Ministry of Health declined to have the vaccine tested.

With great difficulty, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association managed to access the tetanus vaccine used during the WHO immunization campaign in March 2014 and subjected them to testing. The unfortunate truth is that the vaccine was laced with HCG. This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.

When challenged in South America in the early 1990’s about the tetanus vaccine used in their camping being laced with HCG, WHO brushed off the claims as unfounded and asked for proof. When proof was provided by the Catholic based bodies in those countries, WHO claimed that the other components of the vaccine production process may have caused false positive results. When pushed further, they accepted that a few vaccines may have been contaminated with HCG during the production process. However, HCG is not a component nor is it used in the production of any vaccine let alone tetanus! It was only after antibodies against HCG were demonstrated in the women who were immunized with the laced tetanus vaccine that the matter was sealed. The immunized women have suffered multiple abortions and some have remained sterile. Do we have to wait until this point before action is taken?

Who is behind this? Which person or persons is driving the agenda of the World Health Organization? Like Margaret Sanger, they seem to conclude that the world needs a certain direction and they seem themselves as the enlightened ones who are up for the job.

What complete arrogance drives this organization, that it deems itself the arbiter of events in the Third World? This has been done before in initial experiments with hormonal birth control in Puerto Rico. Now it is Africa where there are just too many "brown people" and the rich white westerners think they have the solution to the African problem of poverty and disease.

Two completely different takes on facing death: Brittany chooses to end her life rather than endure more pain and suffering and to relieve her loved ones from her care.

And Nik Wallenda, staring death in the face, defiantly risks his own life for a stunt. His own father died doing just such a thing; after losing his balance, he grabbed the wire but then lost his grip and fell to his death.

Both stories are repellent to me. Both reveal a complete lack of faith in God or belief that God's will matters in our lives. Both take their lives into their own hands and do with them what they wish. Both are all about the "I".

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Today is the second last day of the vigil in Canada. If you haven't been out to pray at one of the vigil sites, perhaps there is still time to finish strong. I know of no other anti-abortion movement that is having the same effect as the 40 Days prayer vigil. Without confrontation, simply in prayerful witness outside the place where abortions are performed, this vigil changes hearts and minds and lives are saved. Both the babies' lives and the lives of their mothers, who are in greater danger of losing their souls.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Father Z (http://wdtprs.com/blog/) linked to a story on his blog yesterday (my, that priest can sure get a lot of blog posts up in a single day!) from a former homosexual who left the Catholic Church when he chose his "gay" lifestyle but reverted some years later. I found the story very touching, especially his contact with Cardinal Burke.

Cardinal Burke is regarded by some as too traditional, too "Catholic", too rule-oriented. I have never found him to be so. In fact, after hearing him in an interview, he reminded me of a dear priest whom many of you know. They both are sticklers on Catholic dogma, but they are able to hold their positions with great love, as they are always gentle with all those people who cross their paths. Those of you who live in Barry's Bay will know to whom I refer.

Back to the story of Eric Hess. Eric describes briefly his becoming homosexual; he traces it to his alcoholic father, with whom he wanted no association. He sought the affirmation he needed from other men and became the victim of a predator.

From 1990 to 1994, I went to Mass off and on. In 1995, I told my “partner” that I couldn’t go anymore because I was very angry with the Church. I boxed up all my crucifixes and Bibles and dropped them off at the office of the bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin with a letter renouncing the Catholic faith.

To my surprise, Bishop Raymond Burke replied with a kind letter expressing his sadness. He wrote that he would respect my decision and notify the parish where I had been baptized. Ever so gently, Bishop Burke said that he would pray for me and look forward to the time when I would reconcile with the Church.

As one of Wisconsin’s most outspoken “gay” activists, I thought, “What arrogance!” Then I replied to Bishop Burke with a letter accusing him of harassment. I told him that his letters were unwelcome and I asked how he could dare to write to me.

My efforts failed to put him off. Bishop Burke sent one more letter assuring me that he wouldn’t write again—but if I should want to reconcile with the Church, he would welcome me back with open arms.

Some time later, Eric found his way back to the Church, first through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. He wanted to let Cardinal Burke know that he had returned to the Catholic Church so he called the then Archbishop's office (Cardinal Burke was AB of Wisconsin at the time) and the secretary told him that the Cardinal wanted to meet with him.

A month after my reconciliation to God and the Church, I went to Bishop Burke’s office, where he embraced me. He asked if I remembered the belongings I had turned over to him with my letter of renunciation. Of course I remembered and Bishop Burke had saved them in the diocesan archives because he believed that I would return.

Eric Hess has nothing but kind things to say about Cardinal Burke, a man whom he hated viciously for a long time. Doesn't it remind you of the father of the prodigal son, welcoming home the wayward boy who spurned his father and family and later came to repent and seek forgiveness?

Ever since my mystical experience, I rejoice because of Raymond Burke, now the prelate of Saint Louis, Missouri. While some malign Archbishop Burke for his fidelity to God, Church and all souls, I say that he is a true shepherd of the faithful and a presentday Athanasius. I tell you that he remains a mentor and an inspiration to me. Although my own biological father rejected me, Archbishop Burke became my spiritual father by lovingly representing our Father in heaven. Like the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity, Archbishop Burke was and is absolutely faithful to me.

Love is not always tolerant; love wishes the best for the other person. Cardinal Burke sincerely wanted this man's salvation and he prayed for that. How marvellous that he saw the day when this man returned to the Lord. This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church; salvation is there for those who acknowledge their sin and come to the foot of the Cross. It is only there that we can be saved. Anything else is cheap grace.

Monday, October 27, 2014

A very interesting article by Steve Wood of Family Life Center International, www.dads.org

. Millions of Catholic wives wonder why their husbands don’t want to go to Mass with them. Likewise, thousands of bright and beautiful young Catholic women wonder aloud, “Where are the marriageable young Catholic men?” I’m afraid it’s goodbye to many good men because of the effeminate atmosphere of the contemporary Catholic Church. The contemporary homosexualized church atmosphere is the penultimate level of feminization, and it stinks in the nostrils of normal men.

Reporting on the defective interim report of the Family Synod, the secular media was delighted to broadcast worldwide that there is a pro-gay seismic shift in the Catholic Church. While the final report of the Synod backtracked on the morally defective statements on homosexuality and communion for those living in adulterous relationships, make no mistake, the lasting worldwide damage is done. For the man on the street, the Catholic Church is just one more institution caving in to our culture’s gay-friendly transformation.

One of the African cardinals remarked that the damage had been done when the preliminary report came out, and no amount of backtracking can undo that damage.

I was dismayed to hear that the three paragraphs that did not get 2/3 vote from the bishops and cardinals was kept in the final document, at the instructions of Pope Francis. That is a mistake. If the majority of the clergy present voted to delete those paragraphs, why were they kept in? That sends the wrong message.

One parish priest here shared with my husband during his confession that he feared that a faction within the Church was going to succeed in throwing away 2000 years of Catholic heritage. Wish that most clergy knew, as this priest does, what is at stake here.

We don't know what is going to come in the days ahead in the Catholic Church. In most parishes, life will continue as usual, but when priests are faced with these difficult questions of how to welcome homosexuals or divorced and remarried people within the Church, they are not going to know what to do. And what usually happens in those cases, is that people tend to go with their feelings of compassion. They really don't know how to care for people when truth must be brought to bear along with compassion.

Clarity has been sacrificed. And we are left with a Church that is less able to instruct the faithful in the way that leads to salvation.

Despite the Family Synod’s backtracking in the final report, we can be sure the damage from the worldwide broadcast of the initial report will be lasting and profound. In the popular mind, the Catholic Church finally caved to the sexual revolution. The Family Synod has given the appearance that the last worldwide moral restraint on sexual sin has given way.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Finally, I firmly believe that the restoration, renewal, reinvigoration, restitution of our sacred liturgical worship is the sine qua non which must accompany, if not precede, every other initiative that we undertake in the Church at every possible level, whether in the parish, in the diocese, in the nation, or in the Roman Curia. For the family home, which is the domestic Church, the daily common prayer of the Rosary – with specific intentions for the good of bishops and priests, renewal of our sacred worship, safety from harm of disease and the attacks of debased movements – can be the mortar which holds fast the foundation of the Church. We are the Church’s living stones. We must play our role in the building and the defense of the Church. When Nehemiah set about to rebuild the walls of the city, the workers wore their swords in case of attack. Let your Rosaries be your sword and your trowel.

I think there is a huge need for great music in our churches. As well-intentioned as Matt Maher may be, I don't think his music deserves a place in the liturgy of the Mass. What we really need is music that will help to create an atmostphere of reverence and the sense that something holy is going on.

I recall as a child being awestruck, and I do mean awestruck, by music in my church. I loved going to the special celebrations of Christmas, Easter, Good Friday to hear the glorious singing from the childrens' and the adult choirs. You could lose yourself in that music. And in a building in which the sound reverberated without the use of any sound system, the effect was something else. As a small child, I could sense the beauty that was in the liturgy even before I had any idea what was going on in the liturgy.

This is what we need now. All the music and liturgical changes since Vatican II have not brought people back to church or helped to renew their faith; the opposite is true - they are leaving in even greater numbers. But I dare to suggest that, give the congregation some glorious music to listen to in church, and they will come back. Perhaps they are only coming for the music, but if the music is selected in order to build faith, we will see changes begin to happen.

Mass is essentially about the Eucharist. You could leave everything else out, and you would be left with the Consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that would be sufficient. So our liturgies should all be directed to that one end: helping people to recognize what is happening during the Consecration. We will see faith growing by leaps and bounds if we do that.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

I am sure that, after the events of yesterday's shootings in Ottawa, there will emerge many versions of what happened. But I predict that one thread that will become quite dominant will be the portrait of the shooter as a "victim".

Rather than admitting flat out that this was a discontented young man who became radicalized as a Muslim extremist, there will be many who will try to analyse what went wrong, with the conclusion that this man was a victim of a broken home, drug addiction, jail trauma, etc, etc.

It doesn't matter if this guy was too bricks short of a load, he self-radicalized and became a terrorist, killing one innocent Canadian person.

Perhaps he was someone who suffered from personal trauma; but concentration on that will make us lose the picture. What most people don't want to admit is that the Islamist jihad tactics are here on our own soil. And we have to fight them for what they are.

To my shock, the Toronto Police department issued a statement to Toronto mosques that was completely uncalled for. They said that they hoped the Muslims of Toronto would not fear a backlash from the day's events, given that the young man appeared to be a Muslim. Where is the statement to young soldiers who are actually being attacked? where is the statement to Jews and Christians who are being attacked and beheaded by Muslim extremists? Shouldn't the statement be coming from the mosques to the rest of Canadian society, apologizing for this man who has committed such violence purportedly because he is a Muslim? I don't think any such statement will be coming.

Last night, Ezra Levant listed all the plots that have been subverted by the Canadian security system and they are numerous. Almost every month over the past year, there has been a jihadist plot that has been scuttled. Why don't we hear about these? Well you can, actually, if you listen to the right sources. Certainly not on the CBC, the national network, but you will hear about them on Sun News.

Someone said to me that he doesn't watch or read Ezra Levant because he is too-extreme. I think that is wrong; I think the situation is extreme and Ezra is simply reporting it.

At least, our Prime Minister Stephen Harper has the courage to call terrorism "terrorism" when he sees it, unlike certain leaders who cannot use the word easily but prefer to call certain acts "workplace violence".

Something that is very concerning and that we as Canadians need to change, is the open immigration policy that we have. Thousands of people immigrate to Canada each year, with a good majority of them coming from countries like Pakistan which is known to be a seat of Muslim extremism. While the US is letting thousands of Central Americans leak through their southern border, we are opening the door, with almost no questions, to people who may be planning our destruction.

We have a mosque just around the corner from our house and I often wonder what goes on inside that mosque. The park beside it, which is a Halifax city park, has become almost exclusively theirs now. They have done this by having a school that uses the park regularly, so much so that other people don't feel welcome to go there. I recall when this park was used by the local public school for soccer games; I haven't seen that for a few years now. The only kids you see playing in the park now are boys and girls with hijab coverings.

It is happening by stealth, this takeover of society by Muslim immigrants. But it doesn't matter how it happens, the result will be the same. The consequence of political correctness and tolerant multi-culturalism is bringing a reality of violence to our country that we would never tolerate if we could see it for what it is.

But we have been duped into thinking that all cultures are alike, that all cultures and religions are equal. They are not. The Islamic faith that permits and condones acts like this is not something that anyone should tolerate. And the fact that moderate Muslims don't condemn such violence speaks volumes; they are all terrified of the violent factions within their own ranks. When I hear people speak of Islam as a religion of peace, I feel incensed; reading the Koran would certainly dispel that claim in short time. The majority of people who attend the Mosque probably don't know what is in the Koran, but there are plenty who do and moderate Muslims do not condemn them. That should tell us something. If Christians were treating people unjustly, we would certainly hear about it from everyone, it is simply not the case. But Muslim injustice goes unchecked by the majority of Muslims because they are simply afraid of the extremists who must be setting the tone.

If we don't stand up against this, we will soon be a country with pockets of this violence everywhere. There are many discontent young men out there who will gladly become Muslims and then self-radicalize. In fact, our government is keeping track of 90 at present who are in that state. They have had their passports removed, but they are still at large. Michael Zihaf-Bibeau was just such a young man.

I predict that Justin Trudeau will talk about the background of this young man and he will lead the victimhood narrative. This shows just how out of touch Trudeau is. Hopefully, Canadians will realise that he hasn't got the backbone nor the sense to lead this country and will get rid of him come election time.

Just as after the Boston bombings, there were people who talked about the sad histories of the Tsarnaev brothers, there will be accounts of Bibeau's sad past. This is no time for armchair analysis when someone's personal background has turned them into a terrorist. For the sake of everyone else involved, they must be seen first as a terrorist in order to reduce further attacks.

People are hoping that this was an isolated incident and that hopefully this will all die down in a few weeks and life can go back to normal. That is an ignorant worldview. The fighting that is going on in Syria and Iraq has come here in its own terms, and we need to be prepared for it. Otherwise, we will be caught like deer in the headlights, stunned as we are rolled over.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Last night, I listened to the Erasmus Lecture given by Archbishop Chaput. This is sponsored annually by First Things and this was the 26th or 27th lecture.

First Things is a publication begun by Father John Nieuhaus who felt the need to equip Christians to witness to their faith in the public square. He obviously could foresee the threats to religious freedom that were coming from the secular culture and from the ever-growing body of government.

Archbishop Chaput is a marvellous thinker and I have never read anything by him that wasn't relevant to today's issues.

Last night, he began the lecture by telling the brief story of the province of Quebec. From a province that was 95% Catholic with extremely high church attendance, Quebec has dropped to one of the most secular places in the modern world. I am not quite sure of the numbers, but I thought he said that only 11% of Quebecers now state that they are Catholic and only a small proportion of those attend Sunday Mass. It has an abortion rate of 48% (pretty close to half of all pregnancies are aborted). The "silent revolution" took people away from institutional faith and the result is a province that is openly hostile to the Church.

It is important to remember that Canada's ruling party, for the most part, has been the Liberal party. And the majority of leaders of the Liberal Party have been Catholics from the province of Quebec. What does this portend for Canada as a whole on the issue of religion and state, religious freedom, upholding of the traditional values that were the underpinnings of this country?

I keep telling my husband (ad nauseum) that our archbishop here is a product of Quebec and, to understand him, you have to keep in mind that he has spent his entire life growing up in a province that is increasingly anti-Catholic, a province that has been making concessions all along to the secular government and is abandoning any Catholic/Christian roots. Our bishop's thinking is bound to be formed by those 60 years, the majority of his life. It should come as no surprise that he doesn't understand those Catholics who think that inviting a "Catholic" abortion-supporting politician to speak at the annual Archbishop's dinner is beyond problematic. It is a disgrace.

I am re-reading the book Catholics Against the Church, a history of the pro-life movement in Toronto in the years 1969-1985. I think it is the doctoral thesis of Michael Cuneo. A second reading brings things out much more clearly: the roots of the antipathy between pro-life Catholics and their bishops, the reluctance of the Catholic Church to be vocal on the pro-life issue (unlike the American church that has many outspoken advocates amongst the clergy). And always there is the thread running through the history of abortion in Canada: that it was Catholics with political power who made abortion legal in this country.

The more I read, the less sure I am of where the answers lie. How do we motivate our pastors and bishops to speak out on injustice? how do we engage them in the "public square" when they firmly believe that they shouldn't be there in the first place? How can we make advances in key areas, such as abortion politics and the drive towards legalizing euthanasia when our clergy have been advised decades ago to keep clear of all that controversial stuff? When people like Cardinal Carter of Toronto set the tone by meeting privately with Prime Minister Trudeau, a meeting in which he gave Trudeau his support for the new Charter of Rights and in which he got in return the continued funding of Catholic schools in Ontario. Although this cannot be proven definitively, it certainly looks as if that is the way it went and there were definitely collusions between Liberal politicians and Church hierarchy at the time.

I have always suspected that our clergy have been closet Liberals, and some (heaven forbid are NDP), but there is some solid evidence there for that suspicion. There is a shroud of compromise and shady deals that has covered the Canadian Catholic Church for a long time. How do we tear that shroud away? Or will it simply take a brand new generation of priests to accomplish that?

Our heart-felt appeal for Gospel values to be upheld is indeed a cry for survival of our people. Because in this year alone many African nations and leaders have been terrorised and threatened by powerful and well funded homosexual lobbying groups who have tried to bend us or break us into acceptance of their lifestyle. We have seen humanitarian aid withdrawn by Western nations at the insistence of these totalitarian groups. We have seen a new brand of "comprehensive sexuality education" targeted at our African children. We have suffered the scourge of abortion lobbyists from the West. We have been forced to welcome extremely rich western philanthropists bearing the unwanted "gift" of contraception. -

Thursday, October 9, 2014

I have heard it said that the majority of the younger generation is pro-life. I don't see this here in my neck of the woods, Halifax Nova Scotia, but I don't think that Halifax is representative of the rest of the country.

Here we have a very vocal pro-choice faction in the city that rises up against everything pro-life, even objecting to bus ads that simply give women the choice to visit a pregnancy centre.

But they are not in the majority. Young women like Lia in the video are coming out as pro-life. As one young person said quite simply: "abortion is really mean."

A Catholic couple, one of six couples invited to make a presentation to the Synod of bishops in Rome, has recounted their own experience with the son of a friend. This young man is in a homosexual relationship and his family decided that the loving thing to do was to invite the same-sex couple to their Christmas celebrations.

“They fully believed in the Church’s teachings and they knew their grandchildren would see them welcome the son and his partner into the family,” added the Pirolas. “Their response could be summed up in three words, ‘He is our son’.”

I can relate to this situation but my response is somewhat different.

When a couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual, seeks to be accepted by their Christian family and friends, shouldn't the response be one of truth given in love? A wise priest once said to me that in these situations, the children pressure the parents into accepting their situation and therefore bully the parents into condoning their choice. The parents comply because they are told by everyone that this is the loving thing to do, yet they themselves are being bullied into abandoning their principles. This is akin to emotional blackmail: the parents are being held hostage by a child who says "accept my behaviour or I will withhold my affection." Who is being unloving here? Aren't the parents' principles being in-tolerated?

This made me think of Alcoholics Anonymous and the companion ministry, Al-Anon. Who would encourage a family to invite an alcoholic to a Christmas gathering, knowing full well that the alcoholic would bring his bottle(s) with him? The wise policy of Al-Anon is not to "enable" the person with the addiction, in this case the alcohol problem. Shouldn't our advice be not to "enable" the wayward child by condoning their relationship?

The family could certainly say to the person that they themselves are very welcome to the family gathering, but that their partner is not. This tells the son or daughter that they are loved by the family and still welcome to be there with them, but their choice of lifestyle will not be accepted.

The couple who addressed the Synod are opting for the "squishy", feel-good solution to a tricky situation. Who will this help in the long term? The wrong message is given to the son or daughter and the parents and family have compromised their principles.

Love has to be tough at times; that may mean it appears to be intolerant. But the truthful approach to this problem is the more loving one in the long run.

In a recent interview with Cardinal Burke, (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/10/interview-card-burke-our-challenges-and-authentic-pastoral-care/) he spoke of the Church being pushed into accepting the current culture. This problem of sons and daughters choosing lifestyles that contradict Christian principles is exactly what he is talking about. When the culture encroaches on our principles, the approach must be one of pushing back, not of accepting what the culture demands in the name of tolerance.

As for what Scripture has to say on the matter, this passage is the one that comes to my mind:

Hebrews 12:6-7: "...the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"

From my perspective, the "loving, tolerant" approach that is a mark of our present culture is the opposite of what real Christian discipline should be. If such a person were to change their lifestyle and reconsider the values of their family, would he find any faith left there?

Friday, October 3, 2014

October 2, 2014 - www.weneedalaw.org placed 100,000 pink and blue flags on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. One tv photographer could not stop staring as he tried to comprehend the numbers. One volunteer said that she just couldn't look, it was too big to comprehend.

Every year, 100,000 boys and girls are sacrificed on the altars of choice in hospitals and clinics. And the executioners are our own medical doctors, dressed in their scrubs. This has to end.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

A picture is worth a thousand words. And in this case, a display is worth 100,000 words. http://www.weneedalaw.ca/ put 100,000 pink and blue flags on Parliament Hill this morning to represent the number of abortions that take place annually in Canada.

This is only up for one day, until about 4 pm this afternoon. The big question is: will the CBC national news cover it? Call them and ask.

What a great move, people need to be shown the reality of abortion in some way. If they won't look at graphic signs, then let them take in the vast number of abortions. They have to be shocked in some way before they will comprehend the truth.

And no, CBC didn't cover the story. Why anyone listens to the CBC is a mystery to me. They are paid for entirely by our taxes, yet they don't represent Canadian views, but the views of the liberal left. Privatize the network and see if it can float.